tv [untitled] July 3, 2015 7:30pm-8:01pm PDT
question she stated that different and when she was referred to the units she's referring to the 3-r report one for the garage one more windows and one for the roof and another one i believe for windows. >> it says nothing about. >> this is a sf 27 percent for the garage. >> yeah. and we were referring to 3-r there were 4 permit and pretty i think substantial. >> those were the permits. >> it is a permit for installing 3 aluminum windows and existing frames in sf 89 pretty minor alteration to base a determination on and we had a meeting with rosemary and mr.
allen davidson and discussed this matter they were in agreement it is likely we have the kitchen that was legal since 1891 since the wash trays in the report and hopefully spoke to mr. duffy as mr. davidson said he would and i hope mr. duffy has something to add and take into account the points. >> this is one story on the original record from 1891 and interests a lot of skrrgsz i beg you find out before you make any further rulings and wait for the nov to be rewritten. >> have a question you showed on the overhead an agreement from the water company dated sf
81 is there a space downstairs. >> no, we have 3 rooms. >> probably could be actually. >> so you know according to this the whole building is 1335 and one water closet. >> it says one bath and one water closet not two separate bathes only one toilet and one bath right. >> yes. yes. i agree we were trying to point out the two wash trays. >> maybe a second wash tray but only one bath. >> to the sink in the bathroom and the wash trays refer to a kitchen sink. >> but what i'm talking about
one bath and one water closet. >> actually we're not disputing it was an spent family home we're disputing this roaches the kingdom e kitchen legal since 1891 it canned a wash tray. >> so let's say your switch kitchen is legal but your bathroom is not you'll have a kitchen in order to use the bathroom. >> it has been grandfathered in dbi just did it. >> all right. and like a week or two weeks ago. >> we'll hear from the department and any other questions. >> thank you very much. >> sir. >> members of the board charles
owner of 57 eureka appellants are here simply for the purpose of delaying my compliance with a notice of violation their appeal must be depend based on the following appellants arguments are previously been addressed by the board in a prior hearing and in the case no. 15 o-4 arguments regarding the legality of the appellants units and the correction of the notice of violation and the alteration permit have been determined in case 15043 appellants discussions in their brief about the configuration of
the units are irrelevant to the issues currently before the board the electrical and plumbing permit to allow the work to be performed under this previously approved alteration permit this board very own decision in case no. 15 dash 043 upholding the site another permit one needs to check the wiring to code was permitted the electrical and plumbing permit before this board is fully conforming with the alteration permit in the previous decision no need for further item shall think for those permits
or to remove an unauthorized plumbing and wiring as ascertained the appellant exclaimed the fees charged by the department of department of building inspection and other unrecommended citations must be ignored the issue is simply whether the electrical and plumbing permits are proper i therefore request that the board deny this appeal and allow me to proceed with the necessary work in order to abate the notice of violation this has been going on for 3 years going on the third year i'd like to put an end to it any questions?
>> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi this two permits the electrical and plumbing as your heard in connection with the building permit to remove the illegal unit on the ground floor it was uphold and typically on a notice of violation we do ask they obtain separate electrical and plumbing permits as well as the building permits you can't do the work loan to remove the illegal units is where he that and the notice of violation was issued as a result of a complaint back in december 2014
i believe and then that resulted in a notice of violation being issued by senior housing inspector allen i should read it, it is significant enough because of the some of the statements that happened here this evening that illegal use of this building is a single-family dwelling on one floor of occupancy two floors of occupancy and one added behind the garage with a full bath and kitchen area the permit failed to show evidence of valid permits to alternate this to its present use there are a number then of items that are listed on here the following hazard exists
unapproved wirings and smoke detectors that was recorded light and ventilation and no egress and no carbon monoxide alarms action that was instructed to be taken was submit a copy of this notice and who sets of plans to legalize the ground floor or to revert is to it's legal use plumbing and electrical permits and the permits and finalize the permits to abate this you must contact the intersecting after
those improvements about some of the statements mr. davidson raising that notice of violation i was contacted today i will say 415 or 4420th century has mr. boskovich spoken to you and mr. davidson came we we discussed the case the senior holy ghost inspector i stated he wasn't revising the notice of violation i think that was a meeting this morning it seems like it happened this morning think between the chief housing inspector according to mr. davidson he said he's not changing the notice those people
said he was this is a quandaryy i guess we can get it in writing but he's not changing it for the board he's to the revising it i don't like standing up here in the position of he said she said the other thing the water department records are you see them all the time as part of my work thank you dbi and i recognize commissioner vice president honda making the point about the number of bath tubes and light fixtures i will say the downstairs units has been there a long time we've discussed it; however the department wrote the notice of violation based on the permit
research there's records i haven't seen those but that's not unusual so sfeerdz the permits are correct for the building permit upheld but from the board needs mississippi more research i'll have to go back and get that i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have one i know it's late i appreciate everyone's patience the question bring it tobacco to the prior use somewhere in the briefs that are two gas meters and so then the appellants has raised a question of the gas to be capped is that common i thought that will have to be
brought back. >> normally caps has to go back to the source of cap. >> and the original source of the property is a single-family residences will two gas meters indicate someone else's. >> i've seen single-family homes i've been told not to put too much into that. >> that's why i asked that. >> we don't put a lot into that. >> when will you seek to. >> you can have them for different areas of the house some people have them there's single-family homes with multiple meters. >> it is common to see a two unite with 3. >> exactly and some for the
common areas and single-family homes i need to do more research but in my experience over the years i've seen single-family homes with double meters sometimes penguin or the gas company in those days maybe not a illegal unit but i'm not sure what the process is i don't know what pg&e rules are today. >> i want one for my son. >> just to clarify i thought you said the permits at issue were written appropriately but are you arresting are perhaps the plumbing one isn't flushed out not testifying where the cap should be. >> well, it could be if you want to take it apart it is definitely i mean, i think the word cap resource is missing but
cap with the plumbing inspector is going to do say hey, you can't switch at the is to have but bring it into the wall and plumbing inspection will catch that that's my understanding the removal of the 0 stove and the gas pipes. >> we can add something. >> i'm satisfied the harder part wherever i believe that unit has been there a a long time this violation was written i'm trying to explain we have a placement a department writing up a notice of violation and permit to comply there was a lot of opportunities here when the notice was written the department cough revised this notice of violation and said if you've got a notice of violation and you're living somewhere and
the department of building inspection is saying why not go back in december and try to get that roved so we're not at this .6 or eight months later i don't know why that didn't happen i spoke to those people amateur is last hearing when those are written there's a time set the - if and from the department is wrong there's something on the notice you want to get it amended so something is not enforced so mr. davidson rising the notice of violation is you know maybe he changed the language we're at a plan here it is a difficult one.
>> is that one of the things in those cases we don't know history other than you know fragments and snapshots a little bit of 1931 and other manufacture i don't know the characteristics of the family that lived there originally we don't know that they had a religious climate change a consciouslyer kitchen and a lot of stuff we made the assumptions i know with all the snip the that wasn't, in fact a single-family dwelling might have two kitchens for a variety so isn't is it dangerous to say
maybe the gas was put in there theirs that's the original position of the home that makes me i understand we're maybe removing residential inventory but we're making assumptions an snippets and maybe the original condition of the home. >> my understanding of housing inspection services they do a permit research and the water department record if someone has it tonight on those - on the water department with the one or two family it says that but it looks like people it's been their benefit or not if the
water department if you're home comes up and a lot of the stuff starts with the water department if one or two families but we'll look at it on the overhead the leg use but we housing inspection services i don't think they go into the water department records so - >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> it's a dbi appeal has the city something. >> thank you skoomdz. >> this was previously upheld
was properly processes there are no things on the property and this is one of the issues that was raised i wanted to get that on the record should the property owner want to legalize the permit. >> any public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners i'm pat a neighbor i'm doing this concerned how we look at history paralyzing on 3-rs that is bans a 3-r report not to my shock the assessor records based on the misted 4 permits one for a garage one unit crossed off the other permits the basis for a
single-family home is a roofing permit and two window permits i live a single-family homes i can get a roofing permit 50 years from now is that legal it is exactly with the water department record and the assessor oversee was done in sf thirty it hospital has two kitchens and one bathroom that's a problem there's a lot of internal stairs if you look at shocking you mention that that is a consciouslyer kitchen and diagram for - you go downstairs it as 8 foot ceilings the dining room is 18 the downstairs is original so i think it was built original downstairs the other issue with the water department
record says two stories the way they define stories it wasn't counted as a story unless it had a berm one over a b but a b is a level without a sleeping room so that water department record basically said there were bedrooms downstairs and consciouslyer kitchen and diagram not a local dwelling but enough doubt what we need to see the assessor oversees file for sf thirty did it say in sf thirty a success ask he second dwelling or a large house but if we're going to start removing the units in this housing crisis we can take a week and continue this case and ask the are
project sponsor it is only consist it is a floor plan of this building in sf thirty saying how many bathrooms and kitchens we're going to rule the units that is permanent we should ask about the document and then get those documents right she should be using the water record and the accessory our files to know all the information i believe the downstairs was a consciouslyer kitchen you want to look at the record it clearly says 2 kitchens one bath is that one unit or an extended family i don't know and i don't know, you guys know. >> we'll take rebuttal from the appellants. >> i want to talk about a couple of things that mr. duffy brought united kingdom up we got
in timely information we got the printout on line and called up 9 gentleman from the dbi he said it should have been posted mr. duffy about you're not taking an early attack is not relevant we were not notified. >> we could take it back to the dbi when mr. duffy told us about it i appreciate. >> we appreciate we have 3 rooms each one as a door and window one of the rooms has a sliding glass door so no problem with egress with a victorian mold with an entire flaltd where people call it flat as far as permit research mr. duffy didn't get dependent water
record we went to the water department and how expensive this is it seems like this is an important record to come up with and my last point how many clues do we need to raise a doubt we have two electrical and water meters this is clear we have the water records as i've stated about the kitchens how many sdrepgz what is going back to the dbi this is our home this is why that is so important to us believe me if we had of been notified we have wyoming have
talked to you and do doing every thing we can and we have taken advantage of our due process and had our hearings at the planning commission we've missed a sector of dealing with that because of the lack of notification i want you to take into consideration this is a big issue i know the law is infected by supervisor wiener and i'd like to point out i hoist of this house this house was built those three houses this is our house this is our house right here and those two houses were built on a water department permit built for newman by jay ma congressional lived in that
house and newman lived in this house they built this how for a man named plant plants name is here number 27 plant and they're built at the same time i do know that. >> we would like to mention the numbers were changed originally it was 27. >> but i also know in sf 05 i've been searching the city records the only way to few a mr. plant had a daughter his daughter was 12 years old mr. plant allowed his daughter and future daughter in sf 05 to move downstairs i have a report of the wedding. >> she was not 12 years old.
>> those houses were built with the intention of having two families in 1892 mr. newman is sharing his residence with a window odd woman i don't know that was common for women to live with men in the seem unit if there is evidence this is the history and mr. plant lived in this house well up until one other owner and then the folks bought this house we know some of the history of what's going on if you look at the report several things not inclusive evidence when was inspected in june of sf 01 maybe those were things to legalize those units for his daughter that was going to get
married there's not enough evidence for the be it resolved border to make this i ask you to send it back and see how the 3-r got changed from 86 years at the planning department it got recorded i ask you to exercise that before the units are removed from the city that is a matter there are plenty of rules without the evidence the planning code said those should be legalized and interests is inconclusive evidence this will be a litigious issue for the city. >> sir, you have rebuttal time you decline it's up to you if you want to use it or not.
>> you have to speak into the microphone if you have something to say. >> please. it's not your turn. >> i don't really know i tried to go to different departments and get the facts to prove that was two units but i couldn't prove it so i don't understand on the water department it said 1891 and then on the assessor errors report the building built in 1898 that's a 7 year